Small ball myth

[gosox41]

The 2005 White Sox scored 741 runs and hit 200 HR's.

 

As of yesterday, the 2006 White Sox have hit 199 HR's and scored 743 runs.

 

Too further the point, it's possible that the 2006 Sox could score 150 more runs the last year while seeing an increase of about 40 HR's.

 

I wanted to see what people thought about all this when looking back on the 2006 team and all the talk of bad bunting, base running, etc.

 

I've always said small ball with this team is a myth. Since the team doesn't have a comfortable lead, a lot of these things are being overanalyzed. I've even debated with friends about lack of late inning small ball then pointed out that a lot of the reasons the game was so close was due to the home rune earlier in the game.

 

This stat does prove one thing: It's all about the pitching.

 

 

 

Bob

[Jordan4life_2007]

You don't win as many 1 and 2 runs games as we did last year without some small ball. Point taken, though. I think we got a little too much credit for that last year.

[Dick Allen]

I think smallball was pretty exaggerated last year. The Sox used homers to score most of the time. They would have a much better record than last year if the pitching was up to par. This offense has been very consistent. They have scored less than 3 runs only 20 times this year. Its the fewest in the majors. They also have a 58-9 record when getting a quality start. Unfortunately today was a loss, but considering it really doesn't take that outstanding of an effort to get credit for a quality start, the record is staggering.

[greg775]

Anybody who watches Sox players try to bunt realize smallball is a myth.

It is painful to watch a Sox hitter try to bunt.

I wonder what our stats are on hit and run plays. Our bunting is horrific

but it seems once in a while guys like Iguchi can hit to rf.

[Whitewashed in '05]

I think smallball was pretty exaggerated last year. The Sox used homers to score most of the time. They would have a much better record than last year if the pitching was up to par. This offense has been very consistent. They have scored less than 3 runs only 20 times this year. Its the fewest in the majors. They also have a 58-9 record when getting a quality start. Unfortunately today was a loss, but considering it really doesn't take that outstanding of an effort to get credit for a quality start, the record is staggering.

The record with quality starts is great and its obvious if our pitching was better we would be challenging the all time win record, but its not.

 

Another thing that makes me wonder is how much did our dead offense last season affect our pitching? I remember in the beginning of the year a few of our pitchers were glad that we were scoring so many runs and that it relaxed them more since they knew that the offense would come around eventually in a game. Well isn't that kind of like slacking? Considering they thought/think if they give up a few runs its okay? How much does that mentality affect the pitching this year? Even though a lot of our pitching staff has changed, its still a different mentality.

 

Now ofcourse you can't put Freddy in that category considering his FB is 84 mph, he just sucks... and so does Vazquez.

[SABR Sox]

Here's my take.

 

AL teams should hit and hit with power. Screw bunting, and even stealing really in low leverage, or simply put, in the early innings of a ballgame.

 

Now if you need one run go for it. Percentages show that with a runner on 3rd and 1 out your chances of scoring the 1 run are a bit higher than a runner on 2nd with no outs. Could fluctuate depending on who's at the plate, but you get the pitcture.

 

I just don't want to see any sac bunts or such going on in the early innings. Wasted outs really just kill rallies.

[gosox41]

You don't win as many 1 and 2 runs games as we did last year without some small ball. Point taken, though. I think we got a little too much credit for that last year.

 

I agree. I wish the Sox had more everyday players who were faster and a threat to steal. I think that's invaluable. While I'd never ask PK or Thome to bunt (and I'm certainly not advocating getting rid of them) some of their speed could distract pitchers and especialy in PK's case eliminate a few DP's. All this contributes to small ball and get easily add a few runs per season.

 

 

 

Bob

[Damen]

I agree. I wish the Sox had more everyday players who were faster and a threat to steal. I think that's invaluable. While I'd never ask PK or Thome to bunt (and I'm certainly not advocating getting rid of them) some of their speed could distract pitchers and especialy in PK's case eliminate a few DP's. All this contributes to small ball and get easily add a few runs per season.

Bob

 

You just don't find many 1st basemen who hit .300 with 40 homeruns and 100+ and the speed to break most double plays.

 

Sure it'd be nice, but it'd never happen.

[chisoxdavid]

The 2005 White Sox scored 741 runs and hit 200 HR's.

 

As of yesterday, the 2006 White Sox have hit 199 HR's and scored 743 runs.

 

Too further the point, it's possible that the 2006 Sox could score 150 more runs the last year while seeing an increase of about 40 HR's.

 

I wanted to see what people thought about all this when looking back on the 2006 team and all the talk of bad bunting, base running, etc.

 

I've always said small ball with this team is a myth. Since the team doesn't have a comfortable lead, a lot of these things are being overanalyzed. I've even debated with friends about lack of late inning small ball then pointed out that a lot of the reasons the game was so close was due to the home rune earlier in the game.

 

This stat does prove one thing: It's all about the pitching.

Bob

I guess it was more timely hitting than small ball

[NorthSideSox72]

Small ball was indeed part of the team's success last year... there is just some question as to how much of it. I don't think it was the key thing - starting pitching, timely hitting, power and defense were more important. I'd say small ball was close to defense for 4th.

 

But the stat you show in this thread as proof is not indicative of anything. You could prove the small ball theory to be false much more completely if you derived run production from HR's or other power numbers in a more reliable correlation. So, for you stat-heads... what numbers best reflect run derivation, and further, how to you equate wins with those numbers?

 

One more wrench to throw into the works here: run production in total is not the same as effective run production. Meaning, a team that wins two games by scores of 3-2 and 2-1 is better than one that wins 14-2 and loses one 5-4, even though they scored more runs. That is the one run game thing, and in tight games against tough pitchers, successful teams require some element of small ball to be successful. We lack that this year.

[Molto]

Why do some people have to associate last year's team as a smallball team or longball team?

 

They didn't win because of homers and they didn't win because of smallball ... they won because of both. Their offense, as bad statistically as it was, was versatile.

 

Overall, they were just sound. Waited for the other team to screw up and then pounced on the opportunity, whether with a key hit, a key stolen base, a key squeeze play a key homer.

[elrockinMT]

You don't win as many 1 and 2 runs games as we did last year without some small ball. Point taken, though. I think we got a little too much credit for that last year.

 

 

Last years success was great defense and super pitching. This year any success is becasue of an overpowering offesne. They can't bunt anf the fielding has not been as sharp and I think our stolen bases are down too. The pitching staff has struggled.

[NorthSideSox72]

Why do some people have to associate last year's team as a smallball team or longball team?

 

They didn't win because of homers and they didn't win because of smallball ... they won because of both. Their offense, as bad statistically as it was, was versatile.

 

Overall, they were just sound. Waited for the other team to screw up and then pounced on the opportunity, whether with a key hit, a key stolen base, a key squeeze play a key homer.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Harry Chappas]

Teams with $100M payrolls do not play smallball. Case in point;

 

Mets, Yanks, Red Sox and cubs

 

Smallball is a term used for small budget franchises as an excuse to not pay the thumpers.

 

How many "smallballers" make over $10M a year?????

 

How many "longballers" make over $10M a year????

[BobDylan]

Small ball is crap. Anyone can tell you winning baseball is about pitching. It doesn't matter how a team gets their runs across so long as the team's pitching can keep the oppositions runs to a minimum.

[Balta1701]

Small ball is crap. Anyone can tell you winning baseball is about pitching. It doesn't matter how a team gets their runs across so long as the team's pitching can keep the oppositions runs to a minimum.

Actually, some of us would argue that there are ways to make your offense more effective in certain situations by being able to make use of either small ball or moneyball type games, for example, some pitchers you can beat much easier by running (i.e. they don't walk a lot of people), but others you can beat by just being patient and expecting to hit the 3 run bomb. The real beauty is being able to recognize beforehand or early in a ballgame which is going to be most effective for your team that day.

 

All of that though is an after-after-after effect. Variable #1 is your pitching, variable #2 is your hitting, Variable #3 is your defense, maybe variable 4 is how you employ your hitting.

[Molto]

It's about having options in your offense. Obviously, if you have the ability to hit home run after home run all the time, then yeah, but there are days when you can't. There are days when you are facing a good pitcher and a hit, let alone hits are hard to come by. So what do you do? Try and hit the ball really really hard even when the pitcher has your number, or take a more basic, easier approach and get the guy over or in.

 

It's about having the right mindset as a hitter and saying, if I'm not going to get a hit, I better at least put the guy behind me in a situation where he can get a hit or drive in a run.

 

"smallball" won't score you a bunch of runs, and to rely purely on that you better have a GREAT staff, but being able to do so will help a team big time in certain situations. late in games when a run or two are hard to come by. I mean, if you go through 6-7 innings and you only score 1 run and you're down 2-1, you can't go up there expecting to simply hit a homer or put a few hits together. Confident that you can do it? Yes, but be realistic and say, "hey, if we get a guy on, we gotta score him the easiest way possible." that's where a "smallball" approach comes in a handy.

[Wanne]

I like it also when Ozzie uses himself in the third person sense.

 

"I think Ozzie Ball doesn't show up this year," manager Ozzie Guillen quipped after the Sox reached the 200 mark on A.J. Pierzynski's two-run homer in the sixth.

 

Ya think. Ok...just what is "Ozzie Ball" What the definition for it?

 

"I think Ozzie Ball doesn't show up this year," manager Ozzie Guillen quipped after the Sox reached the 200 mark on A.J. Pierzynski's two-run homer in the sixth.

 

Is it:

 

1. Leaving your starting pitchers in too long

 

2. Using inept center fielders for the sake of "matchups" when you have a future Gold Glover on the bench...thus costing your team a number of runs.

 

3. Keeping an unproductive leadoff hitter in the lineup on a consistant basis because he "used to be" a basestealing threat. Problem is...he can't get on.

 

4. Having the theory of bunting runners into scoring position...when there's not one goddamn person on the team who can bunt worth a crap....hmmmm.

 

5. Finally realizing in the last month of the season who should be your #3 hitter

[BobDylan]

Actually, some of us would argue that there are ways to make your offense more effective in certain situations by being able to make use of either small ball or moneyball type games, for example, some pitchers you can beat much easier by running (i.e. they don't walk a lot of people), but others you can beat by just being patient and expecting to hit the 3 run bomb. The real beauty is being able to recognize beforehand or early in a ballgame which is going to be most effective for your team that day.

 

All of that though is an after-after-after effect. Variable #1 is your pitching, variable #2 is your hitting, Variable #3 is your defense, maybe variable 4 is how you employ your hitting.

 

You can argue the benefits of small ball all you'd like. I'll agree with every single point you make. But the fact is that the best offense is a good defense. White Sox pitching is a joke, plain and simple. They pound out 12 runs against Tampa Bay -- the worst offensive team in the league -- and then barely scrape by.

[The Critic]

I think the Sox used "small ball" with great success early in games, early in the year.

You'd see Podsednik bunt for a hit or walk, then either steal or get bunted over to 2nd (or 3rd if both happened) and then score on a single or sac fly.

It then became christened "Ozzie Ball", and promptly started to fade out of the Sox arsenal.

Podsednik's leg injury sealed the fate of "Ozzie Ball" and you began to see more reliance on the bomb and the double.

 

Of course, as everyone has correctly stated, Ozzie Ball wouldn't have meant a thing without the pitching and defense the Sox demonstrated last year - the defense and pitching which has too often abandoned them this season.

 

If the Sox make the playoffs this year, they will slug their way in. After that, who knows how well that system will serve them?